Floor Statements

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has opposed this misguided version from the war on terror from the very beginning, I believe it is way past time for our country to take stock of where we have been, where we are, and where we are going in Iraq. I think it is important to remember how we got there.

President Bush told Congress and the American people that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to the United States; that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda and the 9/11 attackers; that the invasion, occupation, and reconstruction would cost us nothing; that Iraqi oil revenues would cover all the costs.

So where are we today? We know that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and that he posed no imminent threat to the United States. We know Saddam had no operational relationship with al Qaeda. Eighty percent of the Iraqi people want us to leave their country. The invasion, occupation, and reconstruction of Iraq will cost us at least half a trillion dollars, not to mention the cost in human lives and international goodwill.

More than 3,000 American soldiers are dead, more than 20,000 American soldiers are wounded. The burden of the Iraq war is being borne exclusively by our children and grandchildren who will bear the debt, and the families of our military personnel, who, at best, experience long separations and terrible worry, and, at worst, lose a beloved family member forever.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has alienated our allies, has called our credibility into question around the world. It has soured Middle Eastern attitudes about the United States and Western democracy. Finally, the invasion of Iraq got us into a long-term bloody occupation of a country with no significant connection to the war on terror and diverted critical military and intelligence resources from the fight against al Qaeda.

The recently released National Intelligence Estimate concluded that there is little prospect for political reconciliation in Iraq at this time. So, what

should the United States do? What does victory in Iraq mean at this point? Most of us would see victory as any kind of political settlement that ended the violence, but the American people need to hear the truth, and the truth is, there is no happy ending for Iraq as long as our presence allows the Maliki government to avoid making the political compromises necessary for peace in Iraq.

Now, the President has proposed a significant increase in the numbers of U.S. troops serving in Iraq. I believe that Congress should oppose this escalation. I don't believe it has any real chance of producing a political solution in the war in Iraq or even curbing the violence in Baghdad.

I am not alone in this belief.

General Colin Powell, General George Casey, General John Abizaid, General Joseph Hoar, General Barry McCaffrey, Major General Don Sheppard and General James Conway all question this escalation.

Now, many supporters of the President's Iraq policy ask what those of us who oppose this military escalation would support instead. This Member of Congress believes that the United States should begin an immediate orderly redeployment of our troops out of Iraq with the goal of completing that redeployment by the end of the year.

We should lead and enlist the participation of all neighboring countries in a massive diplomatic surge to help contain the civil war already underway, and that diplomatic surge should include all the countries in the region, including Iran and Syria. The only way to bring stability to that region is through a regional effort.

Our troops have performed with courage, compassion, and professionalism. They did everything that was asked of them. Their work in Iraq is done. We gave the Iraqis their freedom. It is up to them to decide what they will do with it.

It is time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. It is time for Iraqis to decide if Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds wish to share resources, share power, and coexist peacefully as one country.

America cannot force them to do this, no matter how long we stay there. Only the Iraqi people can decide this.

Mr. Speaker, it is time. The American people have known for quite a while it is time, and I believe this week that finally the United States Congress will take the first step to bringing our troops home by adopting this resolution

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent and Oncology Nursing Society Chief Executive Officer Pearl Moore, for her life-long commitment to advancing oncology nursing and helping people with cancer. In January, Pearl will be retiring from her position as the CEO of the Oncology Nursing Society.

Ms. Moore has lived and worked in Pittsburgh all of her life, and we are proud to have her as a member of our community. Ms. Moore received both her Bachelor of Science of Nursing and Master of Nursing degrees from the University of Pittsburgh and has been an adjunct assistant professor at the University's School of Nursing since 1983.

As a pioneer practitioner, Pearl served at Montefiore Hospital in Pittsburgh as one of the nation's first oncology clinical nurse specialists in the nation. Thirty years ago, Ms. Moore and other oncology nurses founded the Oncology Nursing Society and in 1983 she became its CEO. During her tenure, the Oncology Nursing Society has grown to the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 33,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. The Oncology Nursing Society honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to the public good by providing nurses and healthcare professionals with access to the highest quality educational programs, cancer-care resources, research opportunities, and networks for peer support. I commend the Oncology Nursing Society's staff and members, especially Ms. Moore, for all that they do and have done to improve the quality of care for people with cancer.

Ms. Moore's strong leadership and experience in quality cancer care has been recognized by many organizations. In 1996, the International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care presented her with its Distinguished Merit Award in recognition of steadfast and prolific contributions to the art and science of cancer care worldwide. In 2004, Ms. Moore was named a University of Pittsburgh Legacy Laureate, which honors alumni who have been recognized for their outstanding personal and professional achievements. Additionally, Ms. Moore serves as a member of the School of Nursing's Board of Visitors at the University of Pittsburgh, as well as the Advisory Board for People to People, and the Johnson & Johnson Advisory Board for the Campaign for Nursing's Future. All of these honors are extremely well-deserved. I understand that despite all of her professional achievements, she is most proud of her role as beloved grandmother of her two grandsons, Niko and Tony. Niko and Tony are lucky young men to have such an accomplished and dedicated grandmother.

On behalf of the people of Pennsylvania's 14th Congressional District and all people who have or may be touched by cancer, I would like to thank Ms. Moore for her outstanding and innumerable contributions to oncology nursing. As a nurse and leader in the field for almost 50 years, Ms. Moore has made it her life's mission to help others, and she should be applauded for all she has accomplished. Cancer patients and their families have benefited immensely from Ms. Moore's involvement and leadership in cancer care.

I am most grateful to Pearl Moore for her ongoing commitment to assuring access to quality cancer care for all cancer patients and their families, and I wish her all the best on the occasion of her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present on September 7, 2006, I would have voted ``nay'' on Rollcall 431 and ``yea'' on Rollcall 433 as pertaining to my support for the Horse Slaughter Prohibition Act, of which I am a cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on my colleagues in the House to act quickly on an issue where literally thousands of lives hang in the balance. I speak, of course, of the situation in Darfur, where the Sudanese Government is pursuing a policy of genocide.

This is different than your run-of-the-mill civil war. This is a case in which a government has pursued policies of widespread destruction, rape and murder in order to destroy entire tribes that it considers enemies.

The Sudanese Government and its allies consciously target civilians.

I do not care which term you prefer, a systematic violation of human rights, violations of international law, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, the undisputable bottom line is that the Sudanese Government is carrying out and supporting acts so reprehensible and so horrible that no one with the ability to try to stop it can, in good conscience, fail to do so.

For the last 3 years, the Sudanese Government and its proxies, the Janjaweed militias, have been attacking villages in Darfur; destroying homes, crops and properties; and killing, raping and torturing innocent civilians in a concerted effort to destroy, or at least displace, the tribes most closely associated with the Darfur rebel groups. As a result of this violence and the resulting starvation, exposure and disease, 300,000 people have died, and 2 million more are refugees.

A cease-fire agreement was reached in 2004, and the Sudanese Government agreed to monitoring by an African Union force of 7,000 troops.

The deployment of this African mission in Sudan, inadequate though it was to oversee an area the size of Texas, forced the Sudanese Government and the Janjaweed militias to be a bit more surreptitious about their genocidal activities, which continued, but at a significantly slower pace.

The Sudanese Government and one rebel faction signed a peace agreement this past May. Nevertheless, the killing by government forces and the Janjaweed militias has continued. In fact, the Sudanese Government has launched a major military offensive to finish the job in Darfur before it is compelled by international pressure to allow the U.N. peacekeepers into the region. This is a major violation of the Darfur peace agreement.

The mandate of the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur is set to expire at the end of September, just over a week from now. At that point there will be no military force protecting the people of Darfur from the central government and the Janjaweed militias, and no official observers to deter the Sudanese military and militias by bearing witness to their acts. The only constraint on the Sudanese Government's genocidal policies will be gone, and many of us are worried that what will follow will rival the level of death and destruction inflicted in Rwanda 12 years ago. Moreover, without the AU peacekeepers in place, humanitarian aid deliveries will grind to a halt, endangering the 3 million people who rely on that aid for survival.

Millions of lives are at stake, and the only practical solution at hand is an extension of the AMIS peacekeeping force's mandate. The AU Peace and Security Council is expected to approve the AMIS mandate tomorrow. We need to do our part as well.

Recently the other body adopted an amendment to the 2007 defense appropriations bill that would increase funding for the African Mission in Sudan by $20 million. The other body, to its great credit, recognized the fact that only the African Mission in Sudan can prevent the likely deaths of thousands of people.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to adopt this provision in the conference report, in this appropriations bill. We have no morally acceptable choice but to act and act quickly. Let us do our part to prevent more deaths in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer this resolution honoring the life and accomplishments of the late Robert E. O'Connor, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the city of Pittsburgh recently lost its mayor, Bob O'Connor, to a rare but deadly form of cancer. He checked into the hospital with what we all thought was flu in early July, and he passed away after a valiant fight against cancer on September 1.

Mr. Speaker, every cancer death is a tragedy, of course. What makes this death so significant is the impact that it has had on the city of Pittsburgh.

Bob O'Connor was a true son of Pittsburgh. He was born and raised there. He went to church there. He went to school there. He worked in the steel mills in his youth. He went on to great success as a businessman and entrepreneur. And, finally, more than 20 years ago, he began a distinguished career in public service.

Now, a record of public service like his deserves recognition in its own right, but Bob O'Connor was not your typical public servant. He was an intelligent, outgoing, charismatic man, widely respected for his ability to bring people together and for his commitment to the city of Pittsburgh. Everybody knew Bob, and I daresay everybody loved him.

Our community was excited and enthusiastic about the good things that he and his administration were going to do for the city. That is why his death has been such a blow to the citizens of Pittsburgh. I would like to take some time this afternoon to share a little more about this remarkable man with my colleagues.

Bob O'Connor was born December 9, 1944, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the son of Robert E. O'Connor, Sr., a truck mechanic and combat veteran, and Mary Anne Dever O'Connor, a full-time homemaker. He grew up in Pittsburgh and graduated from Taylor Allderdice High School in 1962. For the next 5 years, Bob worked in the Jones & Laughlin steel mill. During that same period of time, he courted his future wife, Judy Levine, who was also a graduate of Taylor Allderdice High School.

The two eloped to West Virginia and were married there in 1964, and they enjoyed 41 wonderful years of marriage together. They subsequently had three children, Heidy, Terrence and Corey, of whom they were both very proud.

Throughout his adult life, Bob was actively involved in his church and his community. He was active first in St. Philomena's Roman Catholic Church and then St. Rosalia's, and he served on the Board of Directors of Carnegie-Mellon University, Gateway Rehabilitation Institute, the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Alliance, The Caring Foundation, and Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall.

In 1967, Bob entered the restaurant business with several of his in- laws, and over the next two decades he achieved great success in these endeavors, eventually becoming executive vice president of a regional restaurant chain.

In 1990, Bob left his successful career in the private sector to run for public office. He sought and won a seat on Pittsburgh's city council and served on that council with distinction for the next 12 years, serving as council president for four of those years.

Bob had a strong, clear vision for revitalizing the city of Pittsburgh, a vision that sometimes was at odds with the agenda of then-Mayor Tom Murphy. Consequently, during his years on city council, Bob ran twice unsuccessfully for mayor in 1997 and again in 2001. He ran strong, competitive races and came very close to winning, losing to Mr. Murphy in 2001 by only 699 votes.

In 2003, Bob left city council to serve his community running the Governor of Pennsylvania's regional office covering the southwestern section of the Commonwealth. But he felt so strongly about his vision for renewing Pittsburgh that he left that position after a year and ran for mayor for a third time last year. He won in a landslide, and he was sworn into office as the 58th mayor of the city of Pittsburgh last January.

This new administration was welcomed enthusiastically by all of Pittsburgh, and the mayor began to implement his plans for revitalizing our downtown, solving the city's budget woes and stemming the city's ongoing population loss. Even his political opponents wished him well and bore him no ill will.

Sadly, earlier this summer, just as Bob's efforts were picking up steam, he was diagnosed with primary central nervous system lymphoma, an extremely rare form of cancer. True to form, Bob opted for an aggressive treatment regimen that his doctors believed offered the best hope for a cure. The initial results of his treatment were promising, but in late August his health took a turn for the worse; and he passed away, surrounded by his family, on September 1.

Bob is survived by his wife, Judy, his daughter Heidy, his son Corey, and his son Father Terrence, and three granddaughters, Kennedy, McKenzie and Delaney.

I am pleased to note that Judy O'Connor, Heidy Garth, Corey O'Connor, Father Terrence O'Connor, Bob's granddaughters Kennedy, McKenzie and Delaney Garth, his sister-in-law DeeDee Pelled, his niece Maya Beck, and Judy's brothers, Larry Levine and Buddy Klemp, along with close family friends Mike Corey and Bob Jabonowski, are here in the House gallery today to witness consideration of this legislation, which I believe will be approved overwhelmingly.

I would like to recognize them and ask them to stand. I would ask that the House give its greeting. Thank you so much for being here. I am pleased that they could all be here in person to see the House honor a man they all loved so deeply.

I would like to ask all of the House to vote for this overwhelmingly because Bob O'Connor was not just another elected official. He was a man of great worth, generosity, vision and integrity. He was a successful businessman and a widely respected public servant with a distinguished record of service and a potential for even greater accomplishments.

His untimely death at the age of 61, so soon after beginning his first term as mayor, has deeply saddened the residents of Pittsburgh as well as his family and friends. I am proud to claim him as a good friend of mine, and I will miss him deeply. Pittsburgh has lost a promising leader.

I have introduced this resolution with my colleague from Pittsburgh, Congressman Tim Murphy, to honor Bob O'Connor's life, mourn his loss, and extend the House of Representatives' condolences to his family, friends and constituents. We felt that it was fitting that the Nation officially recognize his passing in this manner.

I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in paying our respects to this quintessential American, family man, businessman, man of faith, philanthropist and public servant, and in celebrating his remarkable life.

I would like to close by thanking Majority Leader Boehner for his help in scheduling consideration of this resolution in such short order.

I would also like to thank Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman for moving this legislation quickly through the Government Reform Committee.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to today's rule for the COPE Act which blocked many important amendments, including an amendment that was of great concern to the people all of us represent in this body. Each of us comes from cities or towns, many of us were elected to this body from county councils. Some of us were mayors. I have gotten a lot of calls from the cities I represent, and I know my friends on both sides of the aisle have too, but the leadership stands in the way of debating the amendment that answers their calls.

This rule hangs up on cities and towns. This rule should be voted down. With the Doyle-Dingell cities amendment ruled out of order, leadership has told our cities, told our towns, told our mayors, told our councilmen that leadership does not care about their concerns. Even though TV revenues are a large part of municipal budgets, even though their citizens rely on public, educational, and government channels for information, even though local governments have a lot to say, the leadership has told local governments they are shut out of this debate. This rule should be voted down.

There has been little debate about the COPE Act and what it does to rights-of-way. Proponents say it protects city streets. In reality, it only goes halfway. It allows cities to manage their rights-of-way which include streets, sidewalks and other public property; but that is exactly what America's cities and towns do today. But the COPE Act sends any dispute about those rights-of-way to the FCC. That is such a fundamental change. The COPE Act is so far from how it works today, and our body needs to debate it. This rule should be voted down.

If a city like Pittsburgh has an ordinance that prohibits blocking rush-hour traffic on a major road, who is best to determine whether that ordinance is legal under the COPE Act? Is it somebody from the Pittsburgh area, or is it a bureaucrat in Washington at the FCC?

Mr. Speaker, the COPE Act sends these disputes to the FCC. Why? We will never know. The leadership is afraid of a debate. They are afraid the voices of cities and towns might actually win this amendment. Our body should debate this change of policy. This rule should be voted down.

Today, local governments also enforce the franchise agreements they have signed with cable operators. These franchises include a wide range of other matters. But guess what, the COPE Act takes all other local disputes that used to be resolved locally and it detours them to the FCC. This rule should be voted down.

The Doyle-Dingell cities amendment would have saved taxpayers money by allowing local governments to handle these local problems first. It tapped into the infrastructure local governments already have in place to handle these complaints. This rule should be voted down.

I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle who expressed interest in the Doyle-Dingell amendment. I am sad that their interest in solving problems in a bipartisan manner might have killed its chances from being considered.

Mr. Speaker, the Doyle-Dingell amendment was supported by the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and others. Without our amendment, the COPE Act will create real problems for America's cities. Why should Congress detour disputes about how a city manages its roads away from the local area?

Since when does the FCC care about the Pittsburgh public access channel? How fast will the FCC respond to Pittsburgh's institutional network, the I-Net that a city relies on.

Why should the FCC be the final arbiter over America's streets?

Why is Congress telling America's local governments that they have to hire a Washington attorney to defend their roads?

We will never know. We are not allowed to debate this bill. This rule should be voted down.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my good friend from Maryland for offering a good amendment that is quite similar to the provisions of the Doyle-Dingell amendment that was ruled out of order. No sour grapes. It is a good amendment, worthy of support, but it only goes part of the way.

I want to make sure my friends and colleagues understand that settling for the Wynn amendment is like a football team declaring victory right after kickoff.

The Doyle-Dingell amendment would have been the equivalent of winning the Super Bowl, and I say that humbly, coming from Pittsburgh.

The Wynn amendment gives local governments the right to enforce consumer complaints and outlines an FCC backstop, just like the Doyle- Dingell amendment did.

Where this amendment stops is on the enforcement of the rest of the bill. If you agree with Mr. Wynn that the principle of local enforcement and an FCC appeal is a good one, and you should, you should also agree with that same principle for issues like public access and school channels, INETs, public hearings, as well as consumer protection like the Dingell-Doyle amendment would have.

While we are on the subject of enforcement, I want to make sure my friends are aware that the House will not debate an amendment to fix the COPE Act's rights-of-way boondoggle. For my friends who have gotten calls and letters from mayors in their districts, resolutions from city councils, this amendment, while good, does not address their larger concerns about their roads, their streets, and their other public property.

If local enforcement is such a good idea, and it is, then why should local governments not be allowed to enforce their own laws about their own streets? The COPE Act sends any dispute about streets and sidewalks to the FCC in Washington, D.C. That is a fundamental change. It is so far from how the law works today, and our body needed to debate that point.

America's cities and towns and consumers will benefit from the Wynn amendment, and I thank my friend from Maryland for offering it, but it is a 5-yard gain when America needs 80 yards to score.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just conclude by saying that it is better to have someone in the local jurisdiction who understands the problems of local government make these decisions than a bureaucrat down in Washington, D.C. If you want to have every municipality, every mayor, every city council have to hire a Washington attorney to go to the FCC to represent them when there is a dispute about a street opening, then we have not done a good enough job today on this bill.

The Wynn amendment is a good idea. It is a good principle. It goes halfway. It is a shame we could not have gone all the way and taken care of all the problems in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, would the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. Chairman, when you have a talent deficit, you have to work harder.

Mr. Chairman, just a question. Under the bill, if a local government had an ordinance that said you couldn't open a street during rush hour in a major artery, and the cable or phone company saw that as not reasonable and decided not to comply with that ordinance, where would the appeal process be? Currently, under law now, that appeal process takes place in local courts. Would the bill require local governments to now go to the FCC for any dispute resolution on rights of ways?

If the chairman will continue to yield. So, Mr. Chairman, you are saying under the COPE bill, that any disputes with regards to rights-of-way do not have to go to the FCC for resolution?

So if the gentleman will continue to yield.

You are saying that any right-of-way dispute, any right- of-way dispute could be adjudicated at the local level and not have to go to the FCC.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a Western Pennsylvania native and pioneer in the field of Physical Medicine, Dr. Frank Lyon Rommel, who passed away on I April 28, 2006, at the Moravian Manor in Lititz, PA.

Dr. Rommel, a Board Certified specialist in Physical Medicine was the founder of the Physical Medicine Rehabilitation Department at the McKeesport Hospital, and is credited with rehabilitating hundreds of injured veterans at the V.A. Harmarville Rehabilitation Center in suburban Pittsburgh as well as countless patients in hospitals throughout Western Pennsylvania between 1961 and 1988.

He was born in Glassport, PA on May 5, 1925, was a graduate of Glassport High School, St. Vincent College and the Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University, Chicago. He served overseas during World 'War II as a cryptographer in the Army Air Corps.

Dr. Rommel was married for 51 years to Barbara Bonde Rommel who survives him along with five children, their spouses, 10 grandchildren, two sisters, and is the uncle of our colleague, Congressman Bill Shuster. Internment will be at the Shuster Family Cemetery near Everett, PA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues in the House that June 3 will mark the 25th anniversary of the Children's Transplant Center at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.

The Children's Transplant Center was the first pediatric transplant center in the entire Nation when it was established in 1981. For 25 years, the unprecedented efforts of the surgeons and staff at the Center have continually raised the bar for pediatric transplant surgery and recovery, both nationally and around the globe.

Twenty-five years after the establishment of the Children's Transplant Center under the guidance of transplant pioneer Thomas E. Starzl, MD, PhD, the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh today is widely recognized as a leader in developing strategies to manage organ rejection. From the first and most successful series of small intestine transplants to its breakthrough work in pediatric multi-organ transplants, Children's has repeatedly achieved major advances in the operating room and laboratory.

I commend the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh for its commitment to taking on the most challenging and difficult cases--which, by the way, has not prevented its dedicated and hard-working doctors and staff from achieving survival rates that repeatedly exceed national and international averages. I am so very proud to say that these people are the caregivers for my young constituents and for desperately sick children from around the world.

I want to extend my warmest congratulations to the Children's Transplant Center, the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, and all of the surgeons and staff that are part of the Center and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous artistic ability of a young man from my Congressional District, George A. Blake of Woodland Hills High School. George is the winner in the 2006 14th Congressional District of Pennsylvania's High School Art Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery.''

George's piece, a self portrait, is an impressive portrait in acrylic paint of a young man's face.

George's artwork was selected from a number of outstanding entries to this year's competition. I am certain that his family is proud of his artistic talents as well as this accomplishment.

It gives me great pride and pleasure that George's painting will be representing the 14th Congressional District of Pennsylvania in the national exhibit of high school students' artwork that will be set up in the United States Capitol in the coming weeks. The winners of the Congressional Art Competitions held in each Congressional District will be displayed in that exhibit.

I encourage my colleagues as well as any visitor to Capitol Hill to view George's artwork, along with all of the other winning artwork that will be on display throughout the next year. It is truly amazing to walk through this corridor and see the interpretation of life through the eyes of these young artists from all across our country.

I would also like to recognize all the other participants in this year's 14th Congressional District High School Art Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery.'' I would like to thank these impressive young artists for allowing us to share and celebrate their talents, imagination, and creativity. The efforts of these students in expressing themselves in a powerful and positive manner are no less than spectacular.

I hope that all of these individuals continue to utilize their artistic talents, and I wish them all the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the McKeesport Tigers on their 2005 PIAA Class AAAA state football championship.

The Tigers' 49-10 victory over the Bethlehem Liberty Hurricanes was one of the most outstanding performances ever in a state title game. I want my colleagues to know just how proud I am of their talent, hard work, and determination. They are an outstanding example of the many admirable qualities possessed by the people of Pennsylvania's 14th Congressional District.

McKeesport's second-ever state title capped off one of the greatest and most memorable postseason runs in Western Pennsylvania sports history. Their victory was indeed a team effort under the superb direction of coach George Smith, but there were several individuals who rose to the challenge and pulled through in the crunch. Quarterback Dan Kopolovich ran for three touchdowns and passed for a fourth. His teammate, running back Warren Waite, was able to gain over 100 yards and added yet another score. On the Tigers' defensive team, Travis McBride earned great distinction by returning an interception for a score. These athletes' outstanding performances, ably supported by those of their teammates, resulted in one of the largest margins of victory in the state title game's history.

I applaud the Tigers for their impressive display of teamwork and perseverance. They have truly demonstrated the quintessential characteristics of Western Pennsylvanians in their run to the championship.

I want to extend my warmest congratulations to the Tigers, Coach Smith, and the entire McKeesport School District and wish them all the best of luck in the future and hope for much continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the wrongly named Gasoline for America's Security Act. It would be more appropriate to call this the Don't Hold Your Breath Act, as this bill will not do what my colleagues on the other side claim.

While it is clear to all of us that our Nation does not have the refinery capacity that we need, it is equally clear that the bill before us will not increase this shortfall. The idea that simply eliminating environmental standards and removing judicial control will solve this problem is absolutely wrong.

Over the past 30 years, there has been only one application filed to build a new refinery. I will say that again: only one application has been filed. We are not talking about permit after permit being thrown out. We are not talking about an industry trying time after time to site a facility and being denied.

What we are talking about is the fact that the gasoline industry makes the vast majority of their profits at the refinery level, and there is zero economic incentive for them to increase their capacity. As long as the refineries are operating at near 100 percent, their profit margins are through the roof. This bill ignores this obvious fact and instead focuses on eliminating environmental protections, which is nothing more than a scapegoat measure that will not do anything to address the basic problem.

So what does this bill actually do? It strips virtually all of the environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act when they come into conflict with the siting of a refinery. The bill removes all cases challenging refinery siting from local State courts and forces communities to come to Washington, D.C. in order to challenge the selection of their hometown for a new refinery. And, further, if the local communities lose in court, they have to pay all of the industry's legal bills. This bill also will limit the Federal Trade Commission's ability to impose penalties when presented with evidence of price gouging, effectively incentivizing industry to take advantage of disasters like Katrina.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to reject this bill. Democrats

have a substitute that will address critical shortages during disasters without gutting our environmental laws, and it deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our dear friend and colleague, John P. Murtha as he and his wife Joyce celebrate the 50th anniversary of their marriage. I would like to submit the following statement of Father William George to honor this occasion:

Dinner Blessing by Father William George, S.J. at the 50th

Anniversary Dinner for Congressman and Mrs. John P. Murtha

Blessed are you, God of all Creation. We are created in

your image and likeness and share the gifts you have bestowed

on us, especially your gift of divine Love. Source of all

Love and Kindness, we thank you for the love we share this

evening of Jack and Joyce Murtha's mature and wonderful love

as we celebrate their 50th Wedding Anniversary.

St. Paul speaks of how without love, we gain nothing; that

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not

pompous, is not inflated; it is not rude; it does not seek

its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not

brood over injury, it rejoices with the truth. It bears all

things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures

all things. Love never fails. (1 Cor.)

The faith that Joyce and Jack have in each other is

witnessed to by their 50 years of marriage, but also how hard

they work to support each other and their generosity to

others. Their hopefulness is revealed in their patience and

continued generosity even when criticized and challenged.

Their love is a witness to the divine spirit within all of us

and we thank you for them.

Their gift of self to each other reveals the richness of

the union of husband and wife in the sacrament of marriage.

We ask you to continue to bless their love with your grace.

Jack and Joyce have united in a strong and productive way

in service to their country. As one nation under God, we

appreciate their dedication and love of country. If every

member of Congress had such a supportive spouse, the laws of

our land would be more in accord with your will, bringing

peace through justice. Please, dear Lord, continue to bless

them with vigor, insight and courage.

We ask your care for our young men and women in uniform all

throughout the world who are in harm's way. Inspire them and

make them shining witnesses to justice wherever they serve.

Please bless our celebration of Jack and Joyce's 50th.

Bless this food we are about to receive from your bounty, as

we have faith in you, our God, who lives forever and ever,

Amen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous artistic ability of a young woman from my Congressional District, Lindsay Kilroy of Woodland Hills High School. Lindsay is the winner in the 2005 14th Congressional District of Pennsylvania's High School Art Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery.''

Lindsay's piece, entitled, ``Self Portrait Reflection,'' is an impressive portrait in acrylic paint of a young woman's face.

Lindsay's artwork was selected from a number of outstanding entries to this year's competition. I am certain that her family is proud of her artistic talents as well as this accomplishment.

It gives me great pride and pleasure that Lindsay's painting will be representing the 14th Congressional District of Pennsylvania in the national exhibit of high school students' artwork that will be set up in the United States Capitol in the coming weeks. The winners of the Congressional Art Competitions held in each Congressional District will be displayed in that exhibit.

I encourage my colleagues as well as any visitor to Capitol Hill to view Lindsay's artwork, along with all of the other winning artwork that will be on display throughout the next year. It is truly amazing to walk through this corridor and see the interpretation of life through the eyes of these young artists from all across our country.

I would also like to recognize all the other participants in this year's 14th Congressional District High School Art Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery.'' I would like to thank these impressive young artists for allowing us to share and celebrate their talents, imagination, and creativity. The efforts of these students in expressing themselves in a powerful and positive manner are no less than spectacular.

I hope that all of these individuals continue to utilize their artistic talents, and I wish them all the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the heroic efforts of researchers from the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Michigan to develop the first vaccine against polio.

Before I do that, though, I do want to thank my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), for introducing this resolution and for managing the time on his side, as well as to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their support in this effort.

A devastating polio epidemic struck the United States in the early 1950s, causing thousands of cases of lingering paralysis and death.

By 1952 the epidemic had affected nearly 58,000 people, mainly children and young adults. Many of those affected were combined to mechanical ventilators known as iron lungs, while others were crippled and needed crutches to get around.

Dr. Jonas Salk, Dr. Julius Youngner, and a team of dedicated researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine worked diligently for years to

find a vaccine against this terrible disease, despite the belief by many of their colleagues that vaccination would never prevent polio. Nevertheless, thousands of Pittsburgh schoolchildren offered up their arms to be injected with the experimental vaccine providing enough evidence of its effectiveness to launch a large-scale trial of 1.8 million children.

On April 12, 1955, at a convocation held at the University of Michigan, Dr. Thomas Francis, Jonas Salk's former mentor, announced that the massive field trial of the Salk vaccine, which he had overseen, had been successful. The announcement that the vaccine was safe, effective and potent cleared the way for widespread use of the vaccine and made Dr. Salk one of the Nation's most revered figures. Subsequent inoculations of children and young adults virtually eradicated polio from the United States by 1962.

In light of this momentous achievement it is appropriate that the House recognize the many individuals who were involved in the effort, including those who generously agreed to participate in the clinical trials that validated the efficacy of this vaccine.

The importance of the pioneering work of Dr. Jonas Salk and his team of researchers at the University of Pittsburgh cannot be overstated. Their work saved countless lives and had a monumental impact on the quality of life around the globe. Consequently, I want to take the opportunity of this anniversary to recognize the University of Pittsburgh for its vital contribution to eliminating this devastating threat to public health; and I want to commend Dr. Youngner, now professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, for his hard work and dedication those many years ago.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.